From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: [PATCH 1/3] Enhance platform support for PCI
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:30:04 +0000
Message-ID: <1426152604.21353.333.camel@citrix.com>
References: <54E71BDE.5020106@caviumnetworks.com>
	<54E7229C.7000301@linaro.org> <54E72452.3090801@caviumnetworks.com>
	<54E72688.9010005@linaro.org> <54E729F1.6000804@caviumnetworks.com>
	<54E73010.2050902@caviumnetworks.com>
	<1424439941.30924.243.camel@citrix.com>
	<54E74EA802000078000620B7@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<1424442385.30924.265.camel@citrix.com>
	<54E7552F020000780006215A@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<1424444504.30924.282.camel@citrix.com>
	<54E75D8702000078000621DD@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<1424453619.30924.381.camel@citrix.com>
	<54EAF6390200007800062593@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1503111824510.12207@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1503111824510.12207@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Prasun.kapoor@cavium.com, Manish Jaggi <mjaggi@caviumnetworks.com>, Vijaya Kumar <Vijaya.Kumar@caviumnetworks.com>, Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, "StefanoStabellini(Stefano.Stabellini@citrix.com)" <stefano.stabellini@citrix.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 18:26 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> In other words I think that we still need PHYSDEVOP_pci_host_bridge_add
> (http://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=142470392016381) or equivalent, but
> we can drop the bus field from the struct.

I think it makes sense for the struct to contain a similar set of
entries to the MCFG ones, which would give us flexibility in the future
if a) our interpretation of the specs is wrong or b) new specs come
along which say something different (or Linux changes what it does
internally).

IOW I think segment+bus start+bus end is probably the way to go, even if
we think bus will be unused today (which equates to it always being 0).

Ian.